296
edits
Changes
Debate: Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)? (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, May 16, 2010
, 21:08, May 16, 2010no edit summary
: [[Correlation]] does suggest possible causation, and where, as here, there are reasons to expect causation, then the close correlation is persuasive. The [[Luddite]]s opposed to energy production and consumption are not building hospitals to extend lifespan. The short lifespan in energy-deficient nations in Africa could be alleviated quickly with more energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
: [[Correlation]] does suggest possible causation, and where, as here, there are reasons to expect causation, then the close correlation is persuasive. The [[Luddite]]s opposed to energy production and consumption are not building hospitals to extend lifespan. The short lifespan in energy-deficient nations in Africa could be alleviated quickly with more energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
::Oh, of course I agree that there is a possible correlation, I only meant we can't conclude causation from correlation alone. If I remember correctly from a history class, Iraq could be an excellent example of this. When Iraq nationalized the oil industry (previously owned by British companies) it was able to use that oil and extra revenue to modernize and provide social services to its citizens that raised the quality of life, infant mortality rates, calorie intake, etc. There's no doubt that the effect would have been far greater if they had chosen to privatize the industry instead, but that certainly indicates a causation. I might have to do some more research on this. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:08, 16 May 2010 (EDT)